Allowed

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School, Mandalur village v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary

Telangana HC28 Nov 2011WP/31340/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Government to decide, within two months, on a revision petition regarding the absorption of a school assistant from an unaided to an aided post, relying on a Supreme Court judgment that appointments made before a recruitment ban remain valid.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the pending revision within two months, considering the judgment of the Apex Court.

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School, Mandalur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.31340 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School and another

¶8

… Petitioner And

¶9

The Government of A.P. and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶12

W.P. No.31340 of 2011

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the 1^st respondent in passing orders vide Government Memo No.7816/PS-1/2004-1, dated 30.12.2004 for absorption of the 2^nd petitioner from unaided to aided post in 1^st petitioner’s management in the clear vacant aided post as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the

¶15

1^st respondent to consider for absorption of the 2^nd petitioner as a School Assistant from unaided to aided post from the date of vacancy in the 1^st petitioner’s management in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.9541 of 2007 and batch dated 06.09.2011, with all consequential benefits.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the 1^st petitioner in this writ petition is the Sri Lakshmi Narsimha H i g h School, Mandalur Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District, represented by its Correspondent, T.Srinivasulu and the 2^nd petitioner is one T.V.Rangacharyulu, working as School Assistant (Unaided) in the 1^st petitioner’s school.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the 1^st respondent, Government of A.P., to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the Memo dated 30.12.2004

¶18

absorbing the 2^nd petitioner against the aided post in the 1^st petitioner’s school.

¶19

The case of the 2^nd petitioner is that he was appointed as School Assistant in the 1^st petitioner’s school through the process of selection, in accordance with law, against the unaided post and the issue of his appointment for approval has been taken up by the authorities by proceedings dated 15.10.1997. The 3^rd respondent, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa, instructed the 4^th respondent, District Educational Officer, to submit the proposal for approval of selection for filling up of the post of the School Assistant in the 1^st petitioner’s school of the 2^nd petitioner in terms of the Government Orders. Based on the proposal sent by the 1^st petitioner’s school, the Mandal Educational Officer vide his letter dated 29.10.2002 sent the proposal to the 4^th respondent, who vide his proceedings dated 29.08.2003 rejected the proposal of the management for absorption of the 2^nd petitioner in the

¶20

1^st petitioner’s school. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, Commissioner and Director of School Education, and the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 09.06.2004 rejected the case of the petitioners holding that the 2^nd petitioner is a Social Studies School Assistant (Unaided) and he is not entitled for absorption as against the post of Science School Assistant (Aided) as he is not qualified to hold the post of School Assistant (Science). Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the 1^st respondent, Government of A.P., who vide his letter dated 30.12.2004 informed the 2^nd petitioner that his case is posted for hearing on 05.01.2005 and the matter is still pending before the 1^st respondent.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all these years, the Government kept the matter pending not because that the 2^nd petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of School Assistant and not because that there is no aided post in the

¶22

1^st petitioner’s school but because the matter has been pending for the reason that the Government has imposed the ban vide its Memo dated 20.10.2004. Therefore, the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner in the 1^st petitioner’s school has not been approved.

¶23

He further submitted that in the recent past, the Apex Court had adjudicated the similar matters finally in the case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS^[1] holding that in the cases of appointments made, prior to imposition of ban on recruitment, issuance of Government memo dated 20.10.2004, imposing ban, has no application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his revision.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that in view of the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of recruitment to the post of School Assistant, the authorities have not passed any orders in respect of the case of the petitioners and therefore, the matter is pending with the

¶25

1^st respondent. But, however, he does not dispute the fact that by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above, wherein it is held that the Government imposed ban in the memo has no application in respect of the appointments made prior to the issuance of the ban memo.

¶26

In view of the above, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to for consideration of his case in the revision?

¶27

Admittedly, the 2^nd petitioner was appointed as School Assistant in the 1^st petitioner’s School and the 1^st petitioner’s school sought for approval of the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner. The matter is considered by the original authority and the appellate authority, who rejected the case of the petitioners on various grounds and ultimately, the matter is pending with the

¶28

1^st respondent in the form of revision and it is pending from 2004 onwards, which is clear from the letter dated 30.12.2004.

¶29

In that view of the matter, the 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the revision and also on the representation made by the management, pending with him, taking into consideration the judgment referred to above one supra, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.11.2011 LSK

¶32

[1] (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 556

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School, Mandalur village v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School, Mandalur village v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Rajeswar Rao Vs The Regional Manager

Smt Satyamma , Julakanti Satyavati Vs The District B.C. Welfare Officer

E. Dharma, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

M. Srinivas Reddy Vs The Secretary

K.Shiva Kumar Vs The Secretary

Smt.S.Madhavi Vs The Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Government of India